Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Deputy Prime Minister. During the Gynaecologists and Obstetricians Conference held in Montreal last week, the physicians confirmed they have on occasion treated young girls suffering from the after-effects of genital mutilations done right here in Canada.

These statements show that excisions and infibulations are more widespread than we would have thought. Is the Deputy Prime Minister still of the opinion that the current provisions of the Criminal Code are sufficient, as the Minister of Justice says?

Sheila CoppsLiberalDeputy Prime Minister and Minister of the Environment

Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Justice said in this House, and it is our opinion, that according to the Criminal Code, in Canada, to mutilate a person's genitalia is a criminal act. However, the Minister of Justice also agreed to make sure the Criminal Code was properly enforced in the case of genital mutilation and if not, he said he could take other actions. He will be presenting a report to this House on that issue.

In Canada, it is already a crime for anybody, including a physician, to perform an operation mutilating a girl's genitalia.

Mr. Speaker, is the Deputy Prime Minister not of the opinion that the best way to put a stop to those inhuman practices is to criminalize them through specific clauses leaving no possible margin for doubt?

Sheila CoppsLiberalDeputy Prime Minister and Minister of the Environment

There is no doubt possible. It is definitely against the law as it stands today. In Canada, it is a crime to carry out any mutilation of a woman's or a girl's genitalia. The minister has promised to make sure the Criminal Code is properly enforced. It is already a matter of fact that in Canada nobody has the right to mutilate women's genitalia.

Mr. Speaker, last week was a good week for intoxicated criminals. Thanks to the Supreme Court, drinking and driving may hold less serious consequences and extreme drunkenness is now a legitimate excuse for rape.

Does the Minister of Justice agree with these appalling decisions? If not, what does he plan to about them?

Herb GrayLiberalLeader of the Government in the House of Commons and Solicitor General of Canada

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member has raised a serious point. The decision has concerned many Canadians. I will bring her question to the attention of the Minister of Justice. I am sure he has this matter under review.

A sane society should move toward zero tolerance of drinking and driving, not away from it. A sane society puts rape victims ahead of rapists.

Will the minister urge upon his government a constitutional amendment or the use of the notwithstanding clause to ensure that when the rights of victims and the rights of criminals conflict that the rights of the victim will always prevail?

Russell MacLellanLiberalParliamentary Secretary to Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada

Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Justice is deeply troubled by the decision in the sexual assault case involving alcohol. He is looking into it, as is the department. The minister assures the House that the Department of Justice will come forward with its report on this very important situation.

Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Transport. On September 22, Canadian Pacific put out a proposal to buy all of the CN rail network east of Winnipeg. The federal government responded on September 29 by setting up a parliamentary task force on the privatization of Canadian National.

Does the minister not think he was cavalier announcing the creation of such a task force just days before the federal-provincial conference of transport ministers, while the future of rail transport depends to a large extent on its connection with highway transport, which comes under provincial jurisdiction?

Mr. Speaker, first of all, I would like to point out to my hon. colleague that the task force in question is not a parliamentary one, but rather a group of government members who were asked to examine the possibility of marketing Canadian National activities across the country.

Naturally, if the government received a counter-proposal from CP, such a proposal would have for effect, if accepted, to privatize all railway operations in eastern Canada, east of Winnipeg. I think that we must make sure we are in a position to submit -not only to the government and to Parliament, but to all Canadians- any alternative contained in the unsolicited proposal from Canadian Pacific.

Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Transport again. Why did the minister not give directly to the Standing Committee on Transport, in which the opposition is represented, the mandate of reviewing the CN privatization plan, instead of assigning this responsibility to a special task force made up exclusively of Liberal members?

Mr. Speaker, there is no doubt that the last thing we would want to do, whether as a minister or government, would be to tell the Standing Committee on Transport what to do.

As my hon. colleague and my friends from the Reform Party know-they announced just last Friday that the committee would be holding hearings on airport transfer, on the air navigation system and on bilateral talks with the United States; this makes for a very busy schedule- nothing stops this parliamentary committee on transport from reorganizing its schedule to review the whole issue of how the railway system is going to operate in Canada. Nothing is stopping it from doing that.

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member knows full well that the estimates of salmon provided to both Canada and the United States for our respective management of these fisheries is provided by the Pacific Salmon Commission. This is a bilateral commission

which is jointly funded and jointly authorized by both countries and is independent of both countries.

He also knows full well that on Friday past the executive secretary of the Pacific Salmon Commission acknowledged the counting procedures of the commission and that the numbers which are provided to both countries are off this year. The commission announced its own internal review.

He should know as well that this morning this same commission held a press conference in Vancouver. The commission expressed its deep regret and offered to co-operate fully with the independent review already announced by this government last week.

Mr. Speaker, the review the minister refers to is not an independent review. It is a review by people with deep DFO connections. We had an in house inquiry after the disaster in 1992 and obviously it proved nothing.

We need an independent judicial inquiry which would consider not only the scientific evidence but also the human factor, the management of the resource. Why will the minister not commit to an independent judicial inquiry?

Mr. Speaker, the minister has committed to an independent inquiry led by Dr. LeBlond of the University of British Columbia. Also included are Mr. Joe Scrimger, an acoustics expert from British Columbia; Dr. Dick Routledge from Simon Fraser University; Lee Alverson, a scientist from the United States; and the Hon. John Fraser, former Speaker of the House of Commons.

Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Heritage. Last Friday, six radio stations across Quebec closed when the AM networks of Radio Mutuel and Télémédia merged, resulting in the sudden lay-off of over a hundred news employees.

Does the Minister of Heritage agree with the merger of Radio Mutuel and Télémédia, given that it concentrates the news media in Quebec's regions?

Mr. Speaker, we are never glad when jobs are lost anywhere. What I can say is that at last report, the CRTC received an application for this merger from Télémédia and Radio Mutuel. The case is before the CRTC, which will hold public hearings; under the circumstances, I think that it would be inappropriate for the Minister of Heritage to comment.

Mr. Speaker, can the Minister of Heritage promise in this House to do what is necessary to have the CRTC hold these hearings as soon as possible so that we can get all the facts on this merger and its possible consequences?

Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Heritage cannot dictate to an independent body like the CRTC, which is also a regulatory agency. It would be quite inappropriate for the Minister of Heritage to tell it what to do.

Sheila CoppsLiberalDeputy Prime Minister and Minister of the Environment

Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for his question. I know he has particular interest in toxins that are killing wildlife and endangering human health. That is the reason we have moved with the toxics framework.

We have asked for a 60-day period for public comment. We hope to receive those comments by the end of November with the intention of introducing implementing legislation in the early spring.

Mr. Speaker, in one year we have come full circle. Last week a Liberal government made a payment to the Government of Quebec for additional referendum costs and in justifying its decision based it on the honour and truthfulness of Brian Mulroney. My question is for the President of the Queen's Privy Council and Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs.

Apparently it was the practice of the previous government to commit millions of dollars on the basis of verbal agreements. If that is what the government is saying, will the minister admit that is not appropriate? In the future will cabinet ministers only make these commitments with full and written documentation and with formal cabinet authorization?

Mr. Speaker, the minister should read the rest of the quote. If government members cannot justify this decision, the Reform Party is certainly not going to do it for them.

How can the government justify the inconsistency of paying $34.5 million to the Government of Quebec on the basis of a vague verbal conversation some two years ago when it refuses the right of due process through the courts to Canadian companies that have written contracts with the government to develop terminals 1 and 2 at Pearson airport?